Forshee v. State
| Docket Number: | 2002-CP-00217-COA Linked Case(s): 2002-CP-00217-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 05-27-2003 Opinion Author: King, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Revocation of probation - Hearsay - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Section 99-39-5(2) Judge(s) Concurring: McMillin, C.J., Southwick, P.J., Bridges, Thomas, Lee, Irving, Myers, Chandler and Griffis, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Chandler, J. Procedural History: PCR Nature of the Case: PCR |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 08-23-2001 Appealed from: Monroe County Circuit Court Judge: Thomas J. Gardner Disposition: POST-CONVICTION COLLATERAL RELIEF DENIED AND PETITION DISMISSED District Attorney: John Richard Young Case Number: CV00-086GM |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Eric Forshee |
PRO SE |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: CHARLES W. MARIS |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Post-conviction relief - Revocation of probation - Hearsay - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Section 99-39-5(2) |
| Summary of the Facts: | Eric Forshee pled guilty to two counts of uttering a forgery. He was sentenced to fifteen years on each count, with the sentences to run consecutively. Forshee's sentence was suspended and he was placed on supervised probation for five years. While on probation, he was suspected of possible fraudulent use of a credit card, and his probation was revoked. He filed a petition for post-conviction collateral relief which was denied. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Revocation of probation Forshee argues that the court erred in revoking his probation based solely on the hearsay testimony and because the State failed to present any physical evidence. For a defendant to be guaranteed full protection of the law there must be written notice of the claimed violations; disclosure of evidence; opportunity to be heard and to present witnesses and documentary evidence; the right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses; a neutral and detached hearing body; and a written statement by the fact finders. The rule barring hearsay does not apply to revocation hearings. The level of proof required for the revocation of probation is significantly less than that which is required for a conviction. Here, the court heard testimony that Forshee had committed several crimes and found that there was sufficient cause to find that he had violated the terms and conditions of his probation. Issue 2: Ineffective assistance of counsel Forshee argues that the court erred in barring his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Forshee's claim of ineffective assistance is procedurally barred under section 99-39-5(2). |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
